One of my employees told me that this film is in hot water for using John Lennon’s “Imagine” without permission.  I wouldn’t want to piss Yoko off.  She’ll take what little the film has earned.

Here’s some info on the potential lawsuit:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2477,Yoko-Ono-Filmmakers-Caught-in-Expelled-Flap,Ethan-Smith

Here’s how stupid these guys are:

“In a written statement, the film’s three producers—Walt Ruloff, John Sullivan and Logan Craft—acknowledged that they did not seek permission, but they called the use “momentary.” “After seeking the opinion of legal counsel it was seen as a First Amendment issue and protected under the fair use doctrine of free speech,” the statement said. A spokeswoman said under 25 seconds of the song are used in the movie.”

Yeah, whoever heard of someone getting sued for using 25 seconds of a song…

“Yeah, whoever heard of someone getting sued for using 25 seconds of a song…”

When that bit appeared in the film, Justin Souther leaned over and whispered, “I guess they could only afford one verse.” Guess they couldn’t even afford that.

Dawkins is really pissed over this film, but I doubt it will change any minds either way.

I bet that this “Imagine” issue will not go away.  If they can win their case then it would legitimize anyone lifting songs for anything.  Imagine using the Carpenters for a porno.

“Dawkins is really pissed over this film, but I doubt it will change any minds either way.”

Oh, I think that’s very true, though I do find it disturbing to see people in very earnest discussion after the film, apparently thinking they’ve seen something profound and grounded in fact without questioning those facts and the manner in which they’re presented.

As for the “Imagine” business, it probably will stick. The whole “fair use” concept is tricky, but it does make a different level of protection based on the length of the work. In other words, if “fair use” currently consists of, say, quoting 150 words (I don’t know; that’s an arbitrary figure) of printed material, it doesn’t follow that you can use 150 words of a piece that’s 155 words long. Similarly, using 25 seconds of a three minute song would probably not be fair use under any definition.

this review freaking rocks:)

I seem to remember NWA getting sued for sampling *less than a second* of a guitar solo from an old Funkadelic record. But anyway…

The Fair Use doctrine specifically states that one of the factors to be considered in determining fair use is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Using music in a film’s soundtrack implies permission, and I’m sure that if this case goes to court Ono’s lawyers will be able to successfully argue that this is a clear case of infringement.

If a case goes forward, Ben Stein’s Money won’t save this film from being yanked out of theaters.

“this review freaking rocks”

Thank you.

“Using music in a film’s soundtrack implies permission”

Interestingly—though I’m sure it makes no difference to the filmmakers’ case (or lack thereof)—I looked at the ending credits and the usual “used by permission of” is not on the screen.

“the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”

A case can certainly be made that this is a use that clearly isn’t friendly to the content of the song. Indeed, the song is used to further illustrate the Evils of Atheism—once again making hash out of the claim that intelligent design isn’t religion-based.

Excellent review, which gets right to the heart of the problem of the whole “intelligent design” movement with a minimum of fuss.

I’m a Christian, almost in spite of the fact that I attended private school (one from kinder through 9th grade, a different church school for the rest). Even the A Beka science books, while certainly fairly God heavy, never made the claims this “documentary” does, covered evolution in a reasonable fashion, and while disagreeing with Charles Darwin, never tried to vilify him or blame evolution for *genocide* (indeed, the books I had actively approved of what they called Darwin’s keen observations as a naturalist, and instead attacked the theory by claiming that in later life, Darwin admitted that without a belief in God life seemed dreary, or some such; I can’t verify the exact quote or its accuracy right now). The book did mock the “missing link” a bit and what they termed circular reasoning as far as determining precisely how old dinosaur bones were based on the soil or rocks, but it generally had a “more to be pitied than censored” condescending attitude than “this is evil and must be eradicated.”

The movie, from the sound of it (I don’t plan to actually see it) more closely resembles the second school’s history book, which in a multiple choice question, asked who was the true founder of Communism: Marx, Lenin, or Satan (no points for guessing the “right” answer.) Ben Stein should stick to shilling for Clear-Eyes (which seems almost ironic given the distorted perspective of this movie).

“Ben Stein should stick to shilling for Clear-Eyes (which seems almost ironic given the distorted perspective of this movie).”

So brilliant, it hurts my eyes.

I’m decidedly not a Christian, but I should note that I don’t have an actual problem with the basic concept of intelligent design as a belief. In fact, my own belief tends toward the feeling that creation was not random, but that’s strictly a feeling. My problem stems from trying to label it as science, since it puts forth a basic need for anyone subscribing to it to make a leap into the acceptance of God—even if not by name—in order to work. It doesn’t really matter if you call it God or Yahweh or Phil Rizzuto—there’s some hairy cosmic thunderer, the existence of which (or whom) has to be taken on faith. Since no one seems able to prove the existence of the intelligent designer, we’re really talking faith, not science.

I was interested to find that someone who had seen the film and thought it a fine piece of work asked Matt Mittan to ask me about my review on the radio today, specifically wanting to know how I reviewed Michael Moore’s films. The answer, of course, is that it kinda depends on which Michael Moore films we’re talking about. At the same time, the implication was that a left-leaning liberal like me would be biased against this film, though it could as easily be assumed that a right-leaning conservative would be biased in favor of it. As a result, it’s kind of a wash in the bias department. Regardless, that’s the pitfall of any film with an agenda. It does help, however, if the film in question can back up at least some of its facts and stick to the point it’s apparently trying to make. Simply equating scientists who put stock in evolution with Stalin, Kruschev, Hitler and schoolyard bullies—while ignoring the existence of Christian scientists who also believe in evolution (not included, according to the producers, because it would “confuse the issue")—is dubious at best. But to go from intelligent design not being about religion to a series of rants that Darwinism causes atheism is simply shooting yourself in the foot.

It is a sad but true fact that movies like this seem to be critic-proof. If you like it, good for you. If you don’t, the problem is with you, not the movie. It’s win-win. I’m a Wiccan and personally, I’ve got no beef with Christians in general. I do take issue with those who feel that their POV is the only correct one and it appears that this film falls into the latter catagory. What could have been an excellent opportunity to examine the debate rationally turns out to be wasted. That’s a shame.

Re: Michael Moore: I enjoy the man’s work, but I’ll admit that as much as Sicko was a real eye opener (and I have recommended it to many because of that), parts of it are obviously exaggerated and I fear that he’s losing his marbles (taking a boat down to gitmo was a stunt, pure and simple. he had to have known that it wouldn’t accomplish anything).

The laid-back philosopher in Paris was David Berlinski. He claims to be an agnostic, but his major occupation these days is shilling for the Discovery Institute and attacking atheists. He frequently poses as a mathematician (he has a master’s degree in it), but his Ph.D. is in philosophy. Berlinski is very good at unselfconsciously denouncing other people as arrogant.

Halfway There
http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/

“It is a sad but true fact that movies like this seem to be critic-proof. If you like it, good for you. If you don’t, the problem is with you, not the movie. It’s win-win.”

This kind of comes under the heading of movies that are made for people who don’t care about movies—and probably don’t see very many. They’re strictly made to appeal to folks with a specific interest, and as long as the film panders to that interest, it’s automatically “good.”

While I would agree with most of your review, the part where you say it gets “nutzoid” is actually true. You could have easily learned that by typing “margaret sanger"+"eugenics quotes” into your search engine.
Unfortunately, many of the people we think are doing good for society have another agenda that involves population control. I discovered this to my dismay about a year ago. Even the global warming movement is about making us the enemy so we will accept population culling.

Margaret Sanger quotes
Founder of Planned Parenthood

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

Here’s one on Global Warming making us the enemy:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

— in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome

I know the easy thing for folks to do when they see my posts will be to attack my political views instead of do research. I am a former liberal who broke out of the false left-right paradigm when I saw that both sides, at the top, have the same agenda. The whole left-right hegelian dialectic keeps us divided so we don’t notice. And it is working beautifully.

“While I would agree with most of your review, the part where you say it gets “nutzoid” is actually true. You could have easily learned that by typing “margaret sanger"+"eugenics quotes” into your search engine.”

While I’m not about to get into your whole argument, which goes pretty far afield from the topic at hand before you’re through (I have no idea what the Global Warming quote has to do with any of this), but read again what I wrote --

“All this builds to the film going completely nutzoid as it proceeds to link eugenics to modern-day Planned Parenthood and the theory of evolution to Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust. Stein—who at this point is making an issue of his Jewishness—is determined to equate genocide to Darwinism, despite the fact that genocide predates Charles Darwin by some considerable time.”

I was aware of the connection between Margaret Sanger and eugenics, but you’re making the same leap that the film does by linking all this to modern day Planned Parenthood—unless you’re actually claiming that her long-discredited and appalling ideas quoted here are still the “real” agenda today.

Great review; good job.  Where’s the rss feed? :)

I love the comments, too; like the guy explaining A Beka; oh, I wish I could get hands on my old anti “Darwinian” A Beka “Science” books.  He’s right, though; those books also taught skepticism; just not when it came to religious faith.  If it seems contradictory, well, it is.

Still, ID is NO problem as a religious philosophy; it even attempts to use some very basic skeptic techniques, which is laudable.  Similar to what the the Dalai Lama has to say about Buddhism and Science, only the Dalai is smart and educated enough to recognize the difference between religion and science.

to moontime:  Conservatives get angry when liberals say that the founding fathers were racist, and then they turn around and use the same tactics!  This is why the science being attacked is called “evolution”, not “Darwinism”.  Because founding fathers (or mothers) tend to be incorrect about some things and correct about others.  This is more a sign of social progress than anything.

Ken, Thank you for sitting through this thing so that we don’t have to!  I’ve been writing about this “debate” on my blog as well; one piece at a time:
http://calvinlawson.wordpress.com/answers-in-genesis/

“Great review; good job.”

Thanks.

“This is more a sign of social progress than anything.”

Something it’s very hard to get people to grasp. It’s also hard to get people to understand the sleight of hand cherry-picking that often goes in to making a point—or misrepresenting a thing to make a not altogether founded point. The film in question goes out of its way to have Stein read part of a statement by Darwin. As presented, it makes Darwin out to be a four-square eugenics fan. However, if you read the full quote, an entirely different picture emerges.

“Ken, Thank you for sitting through this thing so that we don’t have to!”

Sometimes the job is pleasant, sometimes it’s not. Goes with the territory. Then again, I can’t imagine anyone sitting through this movie because they want to—at least anyone who isn’t already convinced of its message. I’m not at all sure, but I think I may be the only person posting here who has actually watched this thing.

“Sometimes the job is pleasant, sometimes it’s not. Goes with the territory. Then again, I can’t imagine anyone sitting through this movie because they want to—at least anyone who isn’t already convinced of its message. I’m not at all sure, but I think I may be the only person posting here who has actually watched this thing.”

I’m have a different opinion about this.  If you have one point of view, then you NEED to read and watch all that you can about the opposing point of view.  If you don’t then you’re no better than those people that fall back on the bible.

I make it a habit to stock all I can on both sides of an issue.  I have a slew of anti-Michael Moore dvds, they don’t rent, but I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t have them.  I’m looking for a few anti-Hillary and Obama ones right now.

“I’m have a different opinion about this.  If you have one point of view, then you NEED to read and watch all that you can about the opposing point of view.  If you don’t then you’re no better than those people that fall back on the bible.”

Up to a point, yes—and bear in mind that I said I couldn’t conceive of anyone wanting to sit through this, which is different from saying anyone who might feel they should. There’s also the simple fact that you can’t possibly watch or read everything and some things you don’t really need to. Believe me, the 20-30 minutes of Fox News I get every few months at the obviously mis-named 10 minute oil change place is enough of that for me.

“I make it a habit to stock all I can on both sides of an issue.  I have a slew of anti-Michael Moore dvds, they don’t rent, but I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t have them.”

I could never do that for several reasons, not the least of which is I’m not going to enrich these people’s coffers by buying such things, and I wouldn’t feel right making money off them (though apparently that’s not a problem you face). Not putting money in the pockets of the makers of EXPELLED actually does seem to be a factor with people not going to see it.

Ref: No Intelligence Allowed

All,

I found this online today & I just cant a party here in Buncombe County is so closed minded & just rude.

Read This:  READ READ READ READ

francois manavit says:

April 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I was part of a small group to organize the County Democrat forum in Fairview last week .
I had a tough job to keep the forum definition viable : from Lat : foris : Out of doors .

” We don’t want citizen participation ..” i was told when i suggested a question oriented on the subject in order to promote transparency ..or adding an email to the add in our town paper so the citizen could send their question for us, in advance , to study and prepare before , or even proposing a bipartisan forum .

I had to insist for the matter of Citizen participation to be taken into consideration but was turn down by email after a member of the group who was supposed to take our drafted questions and rewrite them wrote to me that my question was not ” well written ”enough to be considered . I feel like i have been censored ,my questions pushed aside and that The Mountain spring community , is not represented as we have serious concerns about our water , wells and springs due to the arrival of the giant CLIFF golf Course and its five tons of chemicals a year in our watershed .

Fairview is under a spell or a paralysis as no one wants to speak-up or act in order to sleep better to comfort each other and make no waves . Self -censorship is a common . With years of neglect and inattention we are starting to hear such incredible statements like “..We don’t want citizen participation ” and this is for me the sign that our local democracy and our party is in danger .

Reducing Intentionally the citizen participation and use censorship at such a basic level of participatory Democracy is scandalous and is a reflection of our flakiness , wasting the time of our constituents , reinforcing the apathy and opening the pandora box : Scrutiny and questioning of the real intentions at every level of the system .

We should not be able to muzzled citizen participation or dictate the destiny of a community that easily ,we should be their representative , conduct business in their name with integrity and devotion .

Regards
Francois Manavit
Vice-Chair DEM 39.2

I love watching propaganda and have a fine-tuned appreciation for the genre but this thing is just all around terrible film making.
Ben Stein is no Leni Riefenstahl.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Ben Stein is no Leni Riefenstahl.

True enough, but the idea of having that guy who went from Princeton to City College to a reclining chair in Paris (identified as David Berlinski by someone above) descend into the film from clouds a la Hitler’s plane in Triumph of the Will conjures an amusing image I wished they’d thought of.

“I love watching propaganda and have a fine-tuned appreciation for the genre but this thing is just all around terrible film making.
Ben Stein is no Leni Riefenstahl.”

I love propaganda too, and try to watch as much as I possibly can, from old corporate ads to religious nutcases.

Probably the jewel of my inventory is the recently acquired IF FOOTMEN TIRE YOU, WHAT WILL HORSES DO?  Made by shlockmeister Ron Ormond after he survived a plane crash and went pentecostal, this film will melt your mind.  He shows a Communist controlled America…

http://youtube.com/watch?v=taYThk1FX2k

I can’t resist, so here’s another clip.  I love this movie so much!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IVG1_lnjw2s&feature=related

With regard to the New York Times editorial on this film....Shakespeare said it best.  The level of protest is grossly out of proportion.  The fact is, the documentary is superbly done.  The music is fantastic, and the debate needs to be addressed.  What are people so afraid of, for Pete’s sake.

Afraid of? Well, simply the fact that the film is full of lies and half-truths and paints a wholly false picture of this so-called debate is a good starting point. Further, the film is not by any standard I’m aware of “superbly done,” and its own arguments keep tripping over their own inability to determine what “intelligent design” is. But, yeah, at least one part of the music is fantastic—that chunk of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Too bad they didn’t bother to clear the copyright on that.

While I’m not about to get into your whole argument, which goes pretty far afield from the topic at hand before you’re through (I have no idea what the Global Warming quote has to do with any of this), but read again what I wrote --

“All this builds to the film going completely nutzoid as it proceeds to link eugenics to modern-day Planned Parenthood and the theory of evolution to Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust. Stein—who at this point is making an issue of his Jewishness—is determined to equate genocide to Darwinism, despite the fact that genocide predates Charles Darwin by some considerable time.”

I was aware of the connection between Margaret Sanger and eugenics, but you’re making the same leap that the film does by linking all this to modern day Planned Parenthood—unless you’re actually claiming that her long-discredited and appalling ideas quoted here are still the “real” agenda today.

----
Yes that is the point I am making. How have her quotes been discredited? There is a global elite who write openly about how they want to eliminate 90% of the earth’s population. There is very much a connection to the Nazis and modern day planned parenthood. The global warming quote was included to show another angle. I realize all this sounds ridiculous- until you research it, and read it straight from these people themselves. I support safe, legal abortions. But the political issue they become every election season is a waste of energy because they will never be made illegal in this country because they are part of a larger agenda.
Sorry if this got off topic, I just wanted to make that one point. I don’t plan on seeing this film, it sounds awful and I’m sorry you had to sit through it.

Re: Intelligent Design in the movie

Who Thought Up The Master Plan? Science shies away from how the universe and life began.

The Christian point of view:

The bottom line is that Christians believe that God created the universe and started life with a master plan and a purpose: that purpose is for him to share his love with others -particularly us as his children.

Most Christians agree that there is clear evidence of adaptation of the species- an amazingly brilliant part of the plan that gave creatures the ability to change and survive major temperature and geographic changes.

But to say this proves everything, and even life itself, came from nothing, by accident is a BIG stretch. Things do not create themselves from nothing. There had to be something or someone eternally already there. We believe God exists eternally in a timeless dimension. So did Eienstein. A favorite quote of his is, “There are two ways of looking at existence. Either nothing is a miracle, or everything is a miracle.”

Regarding the Theory of evolution: There are still big missing links. Algae to land plants is one. Monkeys to man is another.

Re: Macro Evolution: Not one transitional species has ever been found - only fraudulent ones, like Lucy, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Flat Face Man, Sivapithecus, Ramapithecus, etc. Fakes.

Strict Darwinism when taken to extremes (improving the human gene pool by assisting natural selection by eliminating some of the species including humans) really has influenced Hitler (executed retarded and handicapped people), Stalin, and even Margaret Sanger** (Planned Parenthood) (abortion is a means of eliminating members of the gene pool who are unwanted, or imperfect).

Some Religious people are way too closed minded about creation and science and this is unfortunate, but they too are to be respected. To say that the world came into existence in a literal 7 days is one possible explanation (God can do anything He wants, and Science says the universe came into being in a Big Bang in less than a second). There are also verses in the Bible that remind us that God’s timing can be different than ours. “A thousand years is like a day in His sight.” So Christians don’t have or agree on the exact details, only on there being a loving, awesome Creator who created the heavens and the earth.

Some Evolutionists are way too closed minded about the possibility of Intelligent Design or the existence of God. The reason is: Scientists like to measure and prove everything. We believe there are many things that are extremely important and real, like Love, and God, that cannot be measured or scientifically proven. Our proof of God only comes from experiences of praying, and seeing him in our lives, and also seeing His amazing handiwork in nature. He reveals himself clearly through his creation. The cars we drive obviously have a manufacturer. They did not fall together by accident. The Universe is far more complex, and works far better than our cars! When we pray and read about Him, and have dealings with Him, we often sense His presence, and see our lives affected by Him.

Things Science has discovered clearly show a master plan. For instance: The DNA code is a digital, error correcting, redundant, self- replicating code that is neither random nor periodic. The chance of this coming into existence by random chance is impossible.

For more information, consult the manufacturer’s owners manual.

Still learning “Strict Darwinism ...” “has influenced Hitler (executed retarded and handicapped people), Stalin, and even Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) ...”

Do you really want to play that game? Let’s leave aside the fact that this is factually inaccurate (or you can provide some evidence to back up this claim, directly linking these atrocities to scientific Darwinism, rather something you’ve inferred indirectly), and get to the heart of the discussion.

Should I rebut by starting a list of the horrible, unthinkable atrocities which were directly ordered by religious leaders and their devoted political allies? How many wars, murders, rapes, genocides and acts of outright oppression have been done openly in the name of religion? Now, find me one that was done specifically in the name of evolution. Go on, I’ll wait.

As far as the rest goes, you might want to live up to your Handle and seriously look into where you’re getting this information from. Does it come from a serious, neutral source, or does it come from someone with an agenda? Can it be proven, or at least verified? Would you be willing to accept a non-religious view as the accurate one, even if it implied that your personal religious beliefs might be unfounded and incorrect?

If not, you might want to consider why this is the case, rather than simply pointing to random examples of Lucy, the australopithecus afarensis skeleton, which, although perhaps not a direct human ancestor (there’s still plenty of debate on that one) was anything but a hoax. To claim that “Not one transitional species has ever been found ...” is not only untrue, but also shows a significant lack of knowledge on the subject. Are you aware of, say, the many Homo ergaster finds?

My suggestion is to keep learning, and to try, as much as possible, to leave your religious prejudices at the door when you do so.

Steve pretty much said what I would have said, but what keeps getting lost in all this is that whatever intelligent design is, it is not science and it is not a scientific theory. Its very proponents don’t even attempt to prove or test the idea (not that I can imagine how they could).

The result of all this is that this is a dishonest film and a dishonest “debate.” Stripped of all the pseudo-scientific babble and the codswallop about academic freedom, what this comes down to is a desire on the part of the intelligent design contingent to teach religion in school as if it was science.

Steve and Ken’s comments are much appreicated.

It would be interesting to hear a plausible theory of how the universe came into being, and how life began, if there is no creator.

There is also a concern is that in school, science has been teaching it’s version of how everything began, and the concern is that this is like teaching science as if it were religion.

Regarding the request for evidence to back up the claim that strict Darwinism, taken to extremes has influenced Hitler, Stalin, and Margaret Sanger, i regret bringing this up because it distracts from the main “nut” of the issue, that being how did life begin.

My information on the extremes of Darwinian influence (assisting natural selection by selectively eliminating less perfect creatures)are based on quotes from Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

This is not to say that everyone with a Darwinian tilt is a monster. Farbeit. i guess the reason this is brought up is as a concern that the belief that we are merely higher animals, descended from slime, has the potential of inhuman, less humane, (puns intended) behavior.

Regarding Hitler’s influence from extreme Darwinism (note the word extreme), i took my information from this movie, Expelled. The movie is flawed and poorly made, but there is a memorable section where Ben Stein visits a Nazi gas chamber where handicapped and retarded people were told they would be taking a shower, were gassed, then disected for scientific research.i believe this interview and film portion is factual. Darwinian influence is quoted from Nazi files. This is not what Darwin had in mind for sure.

Regarding the rebut by bringing up all the atrocities done in the name of religion, that’s an old one, and sidesteps the issue.

But since it has been brought up, let’s go there.
True, horrific things have been done in the name of religion, including Christianity. One of the most tragic of these was the torture, mutilation and crucifixion of Jesus Christ by religious people in the name of religion. Then there were the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the witch trials. True enough, people used religion for their own power, greed and all. i would tender that these abberations and scandals were done not by people who were true to the true faith (Christianity for certain) but by people who were looking for excuses, or were grossly misinformed, or heretical to the true faith.

For every historical atrocity done in the name of religion, there are many more good things that have happened to civilizations when the true faith (i’m referring to Christianity)was practiced. Europe is what it is today (peaceful and fairly united) due to Christianity. Universities and hospitals were invented by religious people and the Church.
Universities were actually created to solely teach theology and the Bible. It was later on that the sciences were added to the curriculuum.
Slavery was justified by wrong minded religious people, then ended by people with the true faith at heart rather than material greed.

The Justinian Code of Law was developed in the mostly Christian Byzantine Empire, and is still the basis of our western legal system.

So i guess my point is while there have been instances of horrible things done in the name of religion, the fact is that these were instances of misusing the name. Every system we have has been missused. The USA, our army, our government
as well as the others of the world have made big mistakes in the name of their cause and nation.
Schools have abused students, teachers, parents.
People in the Church have gone astray and done the same. But the misconduct of some should not cause us to throw out the good true core of the system.

Thank you for your thoughts. Lovingly received, and i am still learning for sure.

I’ve been reading a lot of Richard Dawkins lately (and watching ROOT OF ALL EVIL), and he makes a great point.  Scientists make theories to BE disproven.  They want discussion, more tests, and the chance for someone to tell them that they are wrong.  If they are wrong, they accept it.  Religion, to their believers, is absolute and unchanging.

A fair and a good contrast between Science and Religion here.
Religion to believers has changed a lot considering the different sects and branches of Islam, the denominations, splits, and reformations of Christianity. However these proponents would hold that God does not change, that He is absolute and unchanging. It’s the core beliefs that do not change (or they are not supposed to) like the 10 commandments, and the 2 that sum them up, “Love God and Love your Neighbor.” i don’t see Religion saying Science is wrong until Science says the origin of the universe and the species is just random chance.
Galileo, Newton, Eienstein were religious people to some extent, and believed in God as creator.

Scientists make theories to BE disproven.  They want discussion, more tests, and the chance for someone to tell them that they are wrong.  If they are wrong, they accept it.

That’s kind of the whole idea behind it being a theory. You don’t hear much about the Theory of Christianity, do you?

Still learning: What do Sanger’s beliefs on population control have to do with evolution? She was talking about the societal impact of birth control, not about the science of how life works. The two are unrelated. It’s not like Sanger is was a respected scientist; she was an activist for birth control (in many forms) who also happened to be deeply racist. Her use of scientific language to further that agenda is no more or less sickening than Ben Stein’s to further his. The fact that something good came out of her efforts — Planned Parenthood — is more coincidence than anything else. After all, Hitler’s Germany gave us the American highway system.

It would be interesting to hear a plausible theory of how the universe came into being, and how life began, if there is no creator.

Do you not see the religious prejudice in this statement? Why would there need to be a creator? And if there was one, as Dawkins often points out, how would that explain anything? After all, in order to serve as an element of a scientific model of the universe, there needs to be some kind of observable reason to think it’s there in the first place. The existence of the universe doesn’t prove anything behind the rather obvious point that the universe exists to be discussed. Why would a conscious, intelligent creator be needed to explain that anymore than one is needed to explain, say, the existence of wind? (Unless you are of the line of thought, somewhat dated these days, that there are also gods for this.) The trouble is that the existence of a “creator” only creates more questions than answers.

A creator has to come from somewhere, right? If the universe exists, therefore it had to be created by something, wouldn’t that also imply that the creator had been created at some point? If there is a creator, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it has to follow some kind of physical rules (what does it eat, for instance) and would have to have some observable behaviors. And, even if there was a creator of the universe, what evidence do you have that it is involved in any way in the development of life on Earth? Why would is spend billions of years “guiding” evolution, when it was powerful enough to simply make it right in the first place? And where is the physical, examinable evidence for one—not anecdotal experiences or the Bible—to begin with?

Do you see how having a creator in the model actually makes the whole thing far more complicated?

For that matter, why would there just be one creator? Why not seven? Why not let every quark have some element of divinity, a product of its own creation? Aren’t these equally viable alternatives to “intelligent design”? Would you want each and every possible idea of the origin of the universe taught as fact in a public school? Or would you rather go with the one that can be tested, quantified, adapted and revised as new information comes in—one that doesn’t require anything other than what can be proven time and time again in experiments to be accurate?

Quote from Einstein

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Regarding Hitler’s influence from extreme Darwinism (note the word extreme), i took my information from this movie, Expelled. The movie is flawed and poorly made, but there is a memorable section where Ben Stein visits a Nazi gas chamber where handicapped and retarded people were told they would be taking a shower, were gassed, then disected for scientific research.i believe this interview and film portion is factual. Darwinian influence is quoted from Nazi files.

I do not recall any part of this that presents Nazi files that cite Darwin. Granted, it’s been a couple weeks since I saw the film, but I suspect you’re in reference to a cherry-picked quote that Ben Stein reads from Darwin about how no farmer would breed his inferior stock, etc. Not only does the quote drop several lines that—surprise—do not support Stein’s agenda, but it omits the ending of the passage he’s reading from. The concluding remarks Darwin made are these:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

That paints a very different picture of what Darwin actually said, doesn’t it?

This is but one of many reasons I call the film dishonest. There are plenty of others. What about the supposed audience of college students wildly applauding Stein’s bravery at standing up to the horrors of the scientific community? Those are largely paid extras hired because Stein and company couldn’t muster a crowd of real students—at a Christian college. The list goes on and on—the “peer reviewed” paper where the “peers” who reviewed it consisted of the guy who wrote it is another one.

Steve, Ken, Orbit,

i am impressed with the knowledge exhibited here.
The quote from Eienstein, the history of Margaret Sanger, very illuminating. Thank you. i especially appreciate the quote from Darwin. He clearly has a bent toward responsibility and care for the human species. Stein’s movie deals with the prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, and i think Darwin gets some collateral mud thrown on him.

i do admit a prejudice to my question of how the universe and life began if not from a creator. My upbringing taught me from childhood, but i have certainly pondered things for myself. And i am not alone. 90% of Americans believe in a supreme being, and even in newly discovered prehistoric tribes, there is an inate belief in a supreme being. i think consistent inate belief suggests the strong possibility of truth.

Regarding the statement:
“A creator has to come from somewhere, right? If the universe exists, therefore it had to be created by something, wouldn’t that also imply that the creator had been created at some point?”

Considering the deep study of Dawkins and knowledge of Darwin, and other details in this dialog, i would respectfully recommend some Christian theology, or even C.S. Lewis’s book “Mere Christianity”. i believe Lewis was an atheist who tried to prove God does not exist, and ended up convincing himself of the opposite.
His book deals with the existence of God without using Bible verses, but from an intellectual, logical approach.

A creator does not have to come from somewhere. A creator can be eternal, ever existing. This theology is consistent throughout the Judaeo-Christian experience. We believe God is eternal, ever existing. He is outside of the dimension of time. He created time. Eienstein advanced interesting theories on the relativity of time, and how it is different, relative to speed and mass and things i obviously don’t have a clue about.

This is the only logical beginning point of existence it would seem. Something/Someone had to already be there, and has to be eternal. Otherwise the question would continue infinitely, “Then who/what created ________?”

We believe every quark does have some element of divinity. We believe God is in all places and fills all things. DNA is a pretty good sign of an intelligent creator.

Veering straight to faith here, one of the greatest proofs of God to us Christians is not our book, not our moral code, not our philosophy of life (all decent religions have these) but it’s based on a person. We believe God revealed himself and his plan to us by becoming man, living with us, doing miracles, teaching us, being killed by us, and still loving us, then rising from the dead. Far fetched. Yes. But proven by eye witnesses who saw him resurrected, proven by followers who saw him alive again, and were tortured to death (10 of the disciples were horribly put to death) for saying they saw him alive, and that this really was who he said he was, God. His crime was blasphemy in his trial when he said he was God. This is why they had him killed.

We believe God still reveals himself through nature. The miracle that we are rational creatures sitting here with computers and heartbeats and memories, and feelings..

Science is great to be sure. i am a big fan and a novice pupil. To me it all points to not only an intelligent creator, but a loving one. What we’ve done with what was handed us in the original paradise is another story. But it will be restored.

A comment above on this page points out that we never hear of the “Theory of Christianity”. Brilliant comment i think. Jesus did not say, “I am the theory of Truth”. He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”.

Thanks for teaching me new stuff from your point of view.
Respectfully,
Still Learning

Re: everyone’s favorite brain: Eienstein and God
It would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

And on another note, why is Cranky Hanke Cranky?

But proven by eye witnesses who saw him resurrected, proven by followers who saw him alive again, and were tortured to death (10 of the disciples were horribly put to death) for saying they saw him alive, and that this really was who he said he was, God. His crime was blasphemy in his trial when he said he was God. This is why they had him killed.

Personally, I question the eyewitness nature of all this, but I know better than to actually argue the point with anyone who doesn’t. However, it seems to me—in my fuzzy memory of some of this—that Jesus never actually said he was God when he was tried. (Of course, all of this leans heavily on whether or not you consider the Bible to be true.) At the same time, if Jesus doesn’t get killed, you don’t have a religion—or at least not the same one.

And on another note, why is Cranky Hanke Cranky?

You ever have to sit through a Wayans Brothers movie or Gods and Generals? Truth to tell, the name probably dates back to Paul Schattel calling me that in a letter to the paper at the time of A.I.. When it was decided later on that the name of the column needed to be changed from Short Takes—especially since I tend to be rather more loquacious than that suggests—I suggested calling it An Elitist Bastard Goes to the Movies, but that was shot down as possibly giving offense, so Cranky Hanke—which has the benfit of rhyming—came into being.

By the way, all this Einstein palaver is actually rather timely since a letter of his was sold at auction (for $400,000, no less) just this past week. In it he wrote, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

I’m not saying that this is the last word—or even a complete picture—on the topic of Einstein and religion, but it’s certainly relevant here. At the same time, it’s worth remembering that not everything that one writes down necessarily reflects his or her final assessment of any topic at all. Hell, I once gave Signs a good review—and it sits the archives online here, haunting me whenever anybody clicks on the link!

By the way, if anyone rushes out to read C.S. Lewis, I’d suggest they also pick up Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian for an alternate view on the matter.

Ken, you are amazing. Articulate, a maverick, a free thinker, and generous with your comment space!

Regarding the comment: “However, it seems to me—in my fuzzy memory of some of this—that Jesus never actually said he was God when he was tried. (Of course, all of this leans heavily on whether or not you consider the Bible to be true.) At the same time, if Jesus doesn’t get killed, you don’t have a religion—or at least not the same one.”

This is very important, and a common opinion. The key words in the trial are spoken by the High Priest when all the witnesses fail to come to any concrete accusation of Jesus. “The Christ, the Son of the Blessed, and Son of Man” are the high terms for God come to earth to save his people. These are all through the prophesies of the coming of the messiah in the Old Testament.

It’s in Mark 14: 61-64. “But He [Jesus] kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ Jesus said, I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Father, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy from his own lips! What do you think?’ And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Being a Jewish or Christian scholar helps here,(all of these are poetic terms from prophesies hundreds of years before Christ) The accusation of blasphemy speaks for itself.

Good point: if Jesus doesn’t get killed you don’t have the same religion. I would just add if he doesn’t get killed “and rise again” it would not be the same religion. Many are killed. Very few rise again. No other religious figure claimed to be God, (not Buddha, not Mohammed), revealed to us the meaning of life and how to live it, then was killed and rose again.

There are other quotes from Jesus and from the other books of the Bible that describe him as being God and God’s Son (part of the Trinity i.e. God). “I and the Father are one. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” is one.

i hope to meet you someday, maybe over a beer, and we could talk about something less intense, like ... politics. ha or movies!

I just saw the movie yesterday May 18th.  I thought it was great.  My problem with all the comments I just read is that all of you come off as scared that intelligent design might have some merit.  You have a right to believe whatever you want, just as anyone else has a right to believe what they want.  Open and frank discussion is never wrong.  What are you afraid of?  People should have a right to choose.  If your want to believe you came from apes, OK.  I know people, whose actions might prove this to be true.  History has and will prove that Darwin was a bigger nut case than Ben Stein.

We believe God is eternal, ever existing. He is outside of the dimension of time.

Believe what you like, but if you’re going to present this as fact, you’ll need to meet the basic requirement of the burden of proof. Where is your evidence for this statement? Can you prove such a thing exists, or even create a viable model of the universe (which conforms to existing evidence) where such a being would explain the situation more accurately than the existing supernatural-free one used by science?

I believe Lewis was an atheist who tried to prove God does not exist, and ended up convincing himself of the opposite.

Really? From what I’ve read by Lewis, he was a very smart man deeply conflicted by his need for reason and his early religious indoctrination. He appeared to spend a lot of time trying desperately to rationalize beliefs he already held for non-rational reasons. The end result was a semi-mystical series of thoughts that didn’t actually resolve anything, but were just clever enough to justify a reasonably smart person accepting Christianity, even with its rather obvious contradictions.

A comment above on this page points out that we never hear of the “Theory of Christianity”. Brilliant comment i think. Jesus did not say, “I am the theory of Truth”. He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”.

And yet the “Theory of Christianity” is very much a part of the faith. How many different sects believe that they have the “real” version of the truth? How much have the basic tenets of the Christian faith changed over the last 2,000 years?

Consider, for instance, the fact that early Christians were a branch of the Jewish faith, and that many of Jesus’ views seem to relate specifically to the situation of a Roman-occupied Judea with a Roman-controlled Jewish clergy. Consider that there were many bitter fights — and divisions — over the inclusion of non-Jewish peoples in the religion early on. Consider the differences between the Orthodox version of Christianity — perhaps the least altered version of the belief system from its early roots — from, say, the beliefs and practices of the Unitarian branch. For all intents and purposes, they are totally different faiths with very different religious values.

My point is that each of these faiths cling to a “Theory of Christianity,” but since there’s no means by which anyone can actually prove anything — they can believe what they like, evidence to the contrary being willfully ignored or viewed as a “test of faith” — faith becomes the ONLY thing they can believe in. It’s a trap, because even if it can be conclusively demonstrated, as it has been time-and-time-again, that there’s no need for a deity of any sort in science, there is no method by which people who put their faith before their reason can make use of this knowledge. All they have, in fact, is the “Theory of Christianity.”

And, again, no one is saying that you shouldn’t have faith. If you believe that an apocalyptic rabbi from the age of Augustus had it right, by all means carry on with that.

But the minute you start trying to teach “intelligent design” as anything other than a Judeo-Christian monotheism in a cheap Darwin mask — and on my dime, no less — be prepared to fight for it on scientific turf. And, since it’s not actually based on science, and since scientists aren’t the ones promoting the message, but are instead the biggest critics of the theory, I’d ask that you reconsider why you want to spread the message in the first place.

No other religious figure claimed to be God, (not Buddha, not Mohammed), revealed to us the meaning of life and how to live it, then was killed and rose again.

Actually, Jesus wasn’t the first or the only. You could make the same argument for Heracles (son of a god destined for greatness, worked miracles, betrayed by those closest to him and deified after death), Osiris and — in some versions of the story where he is killed and brought back to life by Jehovah as a reward for faith — Isaac. And there are plenty of others from cultures around the globe.

Jesus is actually a late arrival on the truth-through-resurrection front, and the resurrection concept wasn’t always a component of the faith. There were a number of early divisions in the religion about just this point. Again, it has nothing to do with evolution. Jesus could still be great guy with a lot of interesting and meaningful things to say, even without a supernatural father-figure to back his views.

My problem with all the comments I just read is that all of you come off as scared that intelligent design might have some merit.

I don’t think anyone here is worried about that. But I don’t want people using public schools to promote their religious views. And since intelligent design, by its very nature, requires a religious belief in a universe-crafting supernatural being with a distinct plan for the existence of all life (and non-life, for that matter), there’s no way it can be viewed as anything else.

Again, where is the proof FOR intelligent design? Where is the proof FOR the existence of said intelligence doing said design, and by what observable means can it be demonstrated to be designing anything? In other words, where is the science behind the theory? These are basic scientific questions, and until there is some hard proof to back them up, there’s no reason to teach them as science.

“Actually, Jesus wasn’t the first or the only. You could make the same argument for Heracles (son of a god destined for greatness, worked miracles, betrayed by those closest to him and deified after death), Osiris and — in some versions of the story where he is killed and brought back to life by Jehovah as a reward for faith — Isaac. And there are plenty of others from cultures around the globe.”

There’s now some suggests that Jesus didn’t exist at all.  There’s one Babylonian myth that mirrors Jesus.

At this juncture, people of faith cannot prove that God exists, and atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.  So I hope that everyone does what I do and keep your mind open.  Read and discuss everything.

Ken, you are amazing. Articulate, a maverick, a free thinker, and generous with your comment space!

Thank you, but it’s not really my comment space. The rest, however, I’ll concede—with a degree of mild embarassment.

Good point: if Jesus doesn’t get killed you don’t have the same religion. I would just add if he doesn’t get killed “and rise again” it would not be the same religion.

I realized after I’d posted that I should have been clear on that point, since that’s clearly part and parcel of the whole thing. As for very few rising again, that idea dates back at least to Osiris. Myth isn’t stingy with fantastic occurrences. That makes me want to address a remark you made some posts back—“i do admit a prejudice to my question of how the universe and life began if not from a creator. My upbringing taught me from childhood, but i have certainly pondered things for myself.” Does this not raise a question in your own mind—the “taught from childhood” bit—that a great deal of this is socialization or indoctrination? I mean, if we were living in ancient Greece isn’t it more than likely that we’d be arguing whether or not Apollo really drives a flaming chariot across the sky every day? Sure, that idea seems pretty quaint to us now, but are we sure that today’s beliefs won’t seem equally quaint one day? One of humankind’s most common failings is the belief in its own absolute modernity—at any point in history.

i hope to meet you someday, maybe over a beer, and we could talk about something less intense, like ... politics. ha or movies!

I’m pretty easily accessible. As for discussing movies, I haven’t found that to be particularly less intense than politics or religion. (That may not be that surprising, since both topics will have bearing on one’s taste in movies.) I’m currently embroiled in a ridiculous survivor game on the Scarlet Street message boards—the goal is to see which Universal horror picture (thru 1945) is the last movie standing. Now, if you want to see a bunch of largely middle-aged folks battle it out as to whether The Wolf Man is actually any good with absurd passion, there’s your reading material. (I warn anyone who wants to look that there’s no profanity filter.)

I mean, if we were living in ancient Greece isn’t it more than likely that we’d be arguing whether or not Apollo really drives a flaming chariot across the sky every day?

Your masterful turn of phrase fills me with envy, Hanke.

My problem with all the comments I just read is that all of you come off as scared that intelligent design might have some merit.

Oh, no, that’s a pretty baseless canard in this case, especially since the film in question never even attempts to make case that intelligent design has any merit—other than a vague sort of “because I say so” tone, which is pretty lame. I’m not even especially worried about the film that much because, let’s face it, its entire audience is made up of people who already believe in intelligent design. (The few people I’ve seen go to it without knowing what it was, wanted their money back within 15 minutes.) Then too, the movie’s taken in a scant $7.2 million at last count and by Thursday will have fallen off the face of the earth to make way for Indiana Jones, so it’s a pretty big flop box-office-wise.

That said, what does bother me is that the film is demonstrably a collection of falsified testimony, the creation of guilt by association (via methods created in the Soviet Union, which is pretty darn ironic), and outright lies. Not calling the film on this would be utterly irresponsible. And, frankly, endorsing the film does nothing to help the case for intelligent design.

Your masterful turn of phrase fills me with envy, Hanke.

I’ve told you before that flattery will get you—oh, all kinds of places.

Re:
“if you’re going to present this as fact, you’ll need to meet the basic requirement of the burden of proof. Where is your evidence for this statement? Can you prove such a thing exists, or even create a viable model of the universe (which conforms to existing evidence) where such a being would explain the situation more accurately than the existing supernatural-free one used by science?”

i guess we don’t try to present this as fact. That implies proof. We present this as Truth which has to be believed eventually no matter how much or little is proveable. i believe it is true that there is a country called India. i have not been there. i can only rely on others to show me pictures and tell me it is real. i believe my car was made by a manufacturer. My watch too. i didn’t see them made. i can just look at them and know they did not fall together by accident from nothing. i don’t need proof to believe this to be true. It’s obvious.

We believe all this stuff because (i am ready for your laughter) God said so. We believe the Bible is His words to us. Genesis goes back to Moses (inspired by God), and if it were not true, it would not fit “the existing supernatural-free one [explanation of the beginning of the universe and life] used by science.”

Rather, it would read something like, “A great turtle stepped out of his cave and was hit by a stone and that became the moon.” Interesting that this an